Older No voters....

[strichener]

Cost of living in Edinburgh. Another reason to vote No.

Says the guy who wants to move to London

[Mr Bairn]

I want to move to London because I'm a city person and that's the best place in the UK for jobs that isn't in Scotland. I want to live in a city that isn't in Scotland.

[strichener]

I want to move to London because I'm a city person and that's the best place in the UK for jobs that isn't in Scotland. I want to live in a city that isn't in Scotland.

So why bother to vote No then? Or have you changed your mind again in the last five minutes?

[Tio Pepe]

Your point was valid was it? Can you point me to the particular piece of legislation which states that making a point about old people on a football forum is illegal?

Since I didn't make a comment about the Polish or Pakistani community, your mewlings come across as nothing more than an attention seeking bout of faux outrage.

Do you deny that old people are, by and large, No voters?

Of course it was valid. Age discrimination has joined other forms of discrimination, such as racial discrimination, as illegal.

Bizarre that you see nothing wrong in ageism.

For someone with over 11000 posts who continually interjects in topics with inane drivel or insults and who feels the need to start copious amounts of topics about nothing to accuse someone of attention seekind is laughable.

[Confidemus]

I want to live in a city that isn't in Scotland.

And find you're king of the hill?

Top of the heap?

A number one?

Of course it was valid. Age discrimination has joined other forms of discrimination, such as racial discrimination, as illegal.

Bizarre that you see nothing wrong in ageism.

I don't see anything wrong with what I perceive to be factually correct. Unless you think I'm way off in my assertion?

[Im_Rodger]

Why older people are voting no is probably because they served in the British army... Or did that not cross anybodies mind.

[strichener]

Why older people are voting no is probably because they served in the British army... Or did that not cross anybodies mind.

Did you get that Job? I hope there wasn't a written assessment.

[Tom McB]

It seems to me that a vast majority of older people are voting No.

A shred of proof would be good.

Seems that young people are very agin

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-polls-blow-for-snp-1-3099478

[Tom McB]

Why older people are voting no is probably because they served in the British army... Or did that not cross anybodies mind.

Conscription stopped in 1960, on that basis your statement would only be correct for chaps ( women were exempt) who are 70+.

Is there any proof that older people are more likely to vote no than middle aged or young people?

[Tom McB]

Yes, and a lot of ignorance.

Perhaps we should appreciate that being old in the first place proves that many of these auld codgers have made some pretty good decisions along the way

Ageism, like racism, is a good indicator of ignorance.

Those who defend either have questions to ask themselves.

[git-intae-thum]

Ageism, like racism, is a good indicator of ignorance.

Those who defend either have questions to ask themselves.

The ignorance on this thread is from those who raised the spectre of ageism in the first place.

It is rightly unlawful under civil law for a company or institution to discriminate against any person based on amongst other things grounds of age.

It is not unlawful or indeed ignorant to state an opinion on the preponderance of one particular age groups voting intent.

Neither is there anything wrong with stating fact.

Persons aged under 40 are having to look forward to much a much longer working life, reduced retirement time and reduced retirement income. All to fund an older generation, who neglected to fund themselves.

That is true ageism.

[Granny Danger]

Yes, and a lot of ignorance.

Perhaps we should appreciate that being old in the first place proves that many of these auld codgers have made some pretty good decisions along the way

At what age does one become an 'auld codger'?

[Granny Danger]

The ignorance on this thread is from those who raised the spectre of ageism in the first place.

It is rightly unlawful under civil law for a company or institution to discriminate against any person based on amongst other things grounds of age.

It is not unlawful or indeed ignorant to state an opinion on the preponderance of one particular age groups voting intent.

Neither is there anything wrong with stating fact.

Persons aged under 40 are having to look forward to much a much longer working life, reduced retirement time and reduced retirement income. All to fund an older generation, who neglected to fund themselves.

That is true ageism.

I agree with where you're coming from but not the totality of your post.

Many older people have funded themselves for retirement. Many others genuinely believed the state pension would go a long way to do this (remember the state pension isn't free, it's something that most people have paid into over the years).

Others have been in such low paid jobs that over their lifetime the idea of investing for their old age is a pipe dream.

Problem with the state pension is that no government has taken the money and invested it for the future; it's simply paid out of current taxation. You can't blame pensioners, or those who will receive a pension in the future, for that.

[Tom McB]

The ignorance on this thread is from those who raised the spectre of ageism in the first place.

It is rightly unlawful under civil law for a company or institution to discriminate against any person based on amongst other things grounds of age.

It is not unlawful or indeed ignorant to state an opinion on the preponderance of one particular age groups voting intent.

Neither is there anything wrong with stating fact.

Persons aged under 40 are having to look forward to much a much longer working life, reduced retirement time and reduced retirement income. All to fund an older generation, who neglected to fund themselves.

That is true ageism.

More ageism, wild generalisations with no basis in facts.

[git-intae-thum]

More ageism, wild generalisations with no basis in facts.

Yes. A generalisation. But one completely based on fact.

Are you disputing the fact that young people today will have to work longer for less? Have you ever wondered why that is the case?

[Bookies Love Me]

I think you'll find it's not just people under 40. Try under 57.

[pandarilla]

Get intae them is entirely correct about the baby boomer generation having their cake and eating it - but as has been pointed out - this is a generalisation to which there are many, many exceptions.

Plenty of pensioners suffering fuel poverty and struggling to make ends meet.

[git-intae-thum]

I think you'll find it's not just people under 40. Try under 57.

Perhaps true with regards to state pension. However the big losers are those in company or employer based pension schemes.

In many cases projected retirement ages extended by years and tens of thousands chopped off pension pots.

But hey as long as I'm alright jack, eh.

[chomp my root]

Perhaps true with regards to state pension. However the big losers are those in company or employer based pension schemes.

In many cases projected retirement ages extended by years and tens of thousands chopped off pension pots.

But hey as long as I'm alright jack, eh.

While what you say is more or less right, to lay this at the door of OAP's is very unfair, they were told to pay their stamp and they would be looked after when they retired. Seeing as how we're going with generalisations, most of them worked from a pretty young age and did what they were supposed to.

All the working longer, crapper pension etc is down to a load of different factors, one of which is that the children of the OAP's have been 'selfish' (one view) and not had enough kids to keep the whole thing going, our aspirations are a lot higher and we're having smaller families because we want to go on better holidays, drive nicer cars etc. That's not a criticism, I'm 'guilty' of it myself. There's also the whole issue of corporate greed for lack of a better way to put it, but that's a whole other issue.

However you dress it up, its extremely unfair to blame it on the generation that have done everything that was asked of them financially and are the victims of a changing world. As an aside, all the 'fought in WW2 stuff' is pretty wide of the mark, there aren't many of those guys left, my dad is 81 and was born in 1933 so way to young. National Service conscription ended in 1960 so the youngest of them would be 72ish and most of them weren't exactly enthusiastic about it. You do become more scared of change as you get older, it seems to be the way of things so most will be voting for what they know, whether you (or I) like it doesn't matter, we'll all probably go the same way if we're lucky enough to live that long.

[git-intae-thum]

While what you say is more or less right, to lay this at the door of OAP's is very unfair, they were told to pay their stamp and they would be looked after when they retired. Seeing as how we're going with generalisations, most of them worked from a pretty young age and did what they were supposed to.

All the working longer, crapper pension etc is down to a load of different factors, one of which is that the children of the OAP's have been 'selfish' (one view) and not had enough kids to keep the whole thing going, our aspirations are a lot higher and we're having smaller families because we want to go on better holidays, drive nicer cars etc. That's not a criticism, I'm 'guilty' of it myself. There's also the whole issue of corporate greed for lack of a better way to put it, but that's a whole other issue.

However you dress it up, its extremely unfair to blame it on the generation that have done everything that was asked of them financially and are the victims of a changing world. As an aside, all the 'fought in WW2 stuff' is pretty wide of the mark, there aren't many of those guys left, my dad is 81 and was born in 1933 so way to young. National Service conscription ended in 1960 so the youngest of them would be 72ish and most of them weren't exactly enthusiastic about it. You do become more scared of change as you get older, it seems to be the way of things so most will be voting for what they know, whether you (or I) like it doesn't matter, we'll all probably go the same way if we're lucky enough to live that long.

Not having a go in any way at poor pensioners mate. I fully realise the levels of poverty for some. My comments as I have already stated, are a generalisation on the general structures of wealth distribution between the age groups and the clear unfairness that exists.

There is no doubt that those now retired or retiring in the near future have impoverished future generations. Blame that on deomgraphics by all means, however society has known of the issue for decades and has done sod all about it.

Why?